quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm impressed (dismayed) with how much traction this religious freedom narrative is getting lately.

It's not so impressive considering the fact that the movement to stop bigotry against gays, minorities and women by Christian establishment has gone fully around the bend and liberal society now all but advocates outright bigotry against Christians. This 'slingshot effect' comes as no surprise, but nevertheless the rule stands that whomever begins to find themselves either in power or in the vocal majority will use their meme-generation power to be a bully.

This does not give any validity to Cruz's particular comment above, but it does explain why all of a sudden Christian establishment feels threatened. Yes, naturally it's also just politics, mind games and so forth, but there's also a reality behind it in this instance. Bigotry always creates backlash no matter who its target is.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201506:02 AM
Bull. It's a reaction to loss of privilege, not actual bigotry. There's a loss of power and prestige involved, but it's not coming from a campaign of oppression.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201510:38 AM
How do we know He didn't? What we know is only what was written down by men. And they didn't record Jesus being for or against. Not one word. Clearly, not a priority. And pay a little attention to the context. This was a time when wives were, more or less, property. A marriage was a contract between a man and his wife's father for an exchange of goods. You couldn't have same sex marriage because you couldn't own an equal.

What is baffling to many Christians is how many Republicans can claim to be Christian and yet fail to care for the poor. Jesus is recorded as having a lot to say about that.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:How do we know He didn't? What we know is only what was written down by men.

First of all please clarify for me whether you consider yourself a Christian. It's not clear if you're responding as a Christian, or as someone who's guessing at what a Christian might respond.

Right now you seem to me to be neglecting the whole 'divinely inspired' aspect that most Christians believe regarding their scripture, and the 'divinely chosen' aspect of the apostles, and frankly the whole divine thing altogether.

quote:And they didn't record Jesus being for or against. Not one word. Clearly, not a priority.

Except that if he had accepted homosexuality that would have been much more noteworthy than if he had condemned it, as the whole Jewish religion was doing. He's not recorded as saying that the sky is blue either.

The Jewish religion was clearly against male homosexuality at the very least, so the burden of proof is on you to argue that he believed differently than the law of the religion he claimed he came to fulfill.

quote:And pay a little attention to the context. This was a time when wives were, more or less, property. A marriage was a contract between a man and his wife's father for an exchange of goods. You couldn't have same sex marriage because you couldn't own an equal.

I said that your God hasn't spoken in support or acceptance of 'same-sex sexual relationships' in general. I didn't bring up same-sex marriage.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm impressed (dismayed) with how much traction this religious freedom narrative is getting lately.

It's not so impressive considering the fact that the movement to stop bigotry against gays, minorities and women by Christian establishment has gone fully around the bend and liberal society now all but advocates outright bigotry against Christians. This 'slingshot effect' comes as no surprise, but nevertheless the rule stands that whomever begins to find themselves either in power or in the vocal majority will use their meme-generation power to be a bully.

This does not give any validity to Cruz's particular comment above, but it does explain why all of a sudden Christian establishment feels threatened. Yes, naturally it's also just politics, mind games and so forth, but there's also a reality behind it in this instance. Bigotry always creates backlash no matter who its target is.

Sure, there's some amount of actual backlash. For instance, business owners getting harassed after they make the news for refusing to provide service to a gay couple, or just saying they would refuse to do so. At this point, this is a relatively minor issue, but real. But this is not the same as a restriction on their religious liberty. [There's some further mitigation being provided through financial support from their ideological allies, but that's not a justification for the harrassment. I don't know that liberals are doing a nearly good enough job policing this.]

The narrative I'm talking about is: Our freedom of religion is being attacked, and we are becoming an oppressed minority.

In other words, loss of the ability to legally discriminate in provision of public accommodations, or in employment, or in housing, is equated to persecution by the state. I'm seeing this sold and bought all over the place, and I'm dismayed because it's a lie. Here's an example of the lying:

posted April 28, 201502:26 PM
Well first, as a Christian, let me say I don't understand the basis of the objection anyone has to baking a cake for a gay wedding. To me it takes a pretty strained interpretation and chain of logic to get there. It's not like they are barring other sinners from their services. It also seems to me to violate several fundamental tenants about not making judgments and loving sinners even if you hate the sin (again assuming you believe there is a sin - not all Christians do).

But, this is a much more complicated issue. This is a country that was founded on the idea of religious freedom, and I find it hard to understand how the government can put someone out of business, fine them massively and essentially bar them from the work place because they won't violate their honestly held religious beliefs. These are all confrontations that have been deliberately sought out, designed from moment one to bring the hammer of government intervention down on people with "wrong" thoughts. It should be troubling to anyone.

It's even odder when you start getting into the hypocrisy of it though, when you start trying to extrapolate the rule to other situations. Would a gay wedding cake baker be required to bake cakes for weddings at anti-gay congregations? Would an all female company be obligated to provide services to the annual mysogenist convention? Can a black owned contractor refuse to perform repairs at the KKK's national headquarters?

My own distinguishing on the issue has been to try an parse a distinction between personal services and sale of products, but even that gets strained in cases like this. Wedding cakes are not off the shelf commodities they are time consumer personal endeavors, wedding photography involves substantial personal service.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201502:32 PM
Is it possible that any perceived (and some real) attacks on Christianity are a direct result of the rise of Islamophobia in our country?

Could our country waking up to what a true marriage of religion and government looks like have tipped the scales? Are we as a society fighting our own cultural skirmish to further force the, "we are NOTHING like THEM" narrative?

Is this backlash only about spitting in the face of the vocal group who spread hateful discriminatory messages? Is it just being dismissive those who seem to be too slow to evolve to a "more enlightened" perspective of human sexuality and an inclusive society?

While I think it is both of those things in part, I don't expect even the more extreme end of the Christian spectrum could generate what backlash seems to exist today without Islamophobia factoring in.

We have been told and shown by the media and our government that religious fanaticism is terrifying and dangerous. Is it any surprise we are moving towards a more secular society? Being moral and just is nice, but being the opposite of our enemies is a more powerful motivation.

For the record, I am a church-going Catholic. I am not ignoring the "divinely inspired aspect" of scripture at all. But tell me what you think that means and I will tell you how we may disagree. And if you think that "divinely chosen" meant that the apostles (who, for the most part, are not the same as the gospel writers) never got it wrong, you haven't read them carefully. Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201502:43 PM
Misogynists and KKK members are not protected classes, of course.

There's room to argue about the photography thing. An exception might be reasonable.

Cake bakers can bake cakes without customizing their speech content (if any) to the customer, so I don't think that's a big deal.

But there are things like housing and employment protections that are actually a lot more important than wedding services.

(Note: the crazy $135k proposed fine in the Oregon baker case seems way out of line to me. I'm hoping the final fine which is still pending is more reasonable.)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Seriati: Well first, as a Christian, let me say I don't understand the basis of the objection anyone has to baking a cake for a gay wedding. To me it takes a pretty strained interpretation and chain of logic to get there. It's not like they are barring other sinners from their services. It also seems to me to violate several fundamental tenants about not making judgments and loving sinners even if you hate the sin (again assuming you believe there is a sin - not all Christians do).

I agree.

quote:

But, this is a much more complicated issue. This is a country that was founded on the idea of religious freedom, and I find it hard to understand how the government can put someone out of business, fine them massively and essentially bar them from the work place because they won't violate their honestly held religious beliefs. These are all confrontations that have been deliberately sought out, designed from moment one to bring the hammer of government intervention down on people with "wrong" thoughts. It should be troubling to anyone.

But here you go a bit off the rails. The government can do that because the government regulates commerce. The same reasons that the government makes it illegal to refuse to rent to black people. The cases that actually are deliberate confrontations (and these are fewer than you might think - the Idaho case for example, is not one) are similar to the lunch counter sit-ins. I am pretty sure there were plenty of folks wondering why the negroes wanted to eat in diners where they weren't wanted.

quote:

It's even odder when you start getting into the hypocrisy of it though, when you start trying to extrapolate the rule to other situations. Would a gay wedding cake baker be required to bake cakes for weddings at anti-gay congregations? Would an all female company be obligated to provide services to the annual mysogenist convention? Can a black owned contractor refuse to perform repairs at the KKK's national headquarters?

Not without risking a license. Also there is a difference between refusing to serve a single client (say, this guy who never pays his bills) and refusing to serve a class of people.

quote:

My own distinguishing on the issue has been to try an parse a distinction between personal services and sale of products, but even that gets strained in cases like this. Wedding cakes are not off the shelf commodities they are time consumer personal endeavors, wedding photography involves substantial personal service.

Yeah. I don't get how you parse that either except to say if it is a for-profit business, it is a for-profit business. We don't know how much love and personal attention that Islamic chef puts into his dishes but we don't let him refuse to serve them to Jews. I think that the line may be in what kind of service you are asking for. A baker should have the right to decide what kind of cake he makes and what decorations he puts on it but not who may buy them.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote:Would a gay wedding cake baker be required to bake cakes for weddings at anti-gay congregations? Would an all female company be obligated to provide services to the annual mysogenist convention? Can a black owned contractor refuse to perform repairs at the KKK's national headquarters?

CAn you come up with an example that's not a false equivalence?

If you chose to operate within the public market, you have to play by the public rules instituted to ensure the market serves the public. That includes following the rules saying that you cannot apply your chosen personal beliefs to refuse services based on inherent characteristics. There is no similar rule saying that you must provide services to elective efforts to attack and oppress you or otherwise do you harm.

If someone wants to offer services on a religious basis rather than a secular one, they're free to directly work within those networks to contract services. Once they step into the public square, then they have to operate by secular rules, which include not co-opting the market to press an overtly religious agenda.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:That includes following the rules saying that you cannot apply your chosen personal beliefs to refuse services based on inherent characteristics.

Is this actually a rule? Rather, I think there are actually specific protected classes. Sure, most of them are based on "inherent" characteristics, but they also include religion, which is not inherent. The protected classes are defined by law.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:It's even odder when you start getting into the hypocrisy of it though, when you start trying to extrapolate the rule to other situations. Would a gay wedding cake baker be required to bake cakes for weddings at anti-gay congregations? Would an all female company be obligated to provide services to the annual mysogenist convention? Can a black owned contractor refuse to perform repairs at the KKK's national headquarters?

This all comes down to what are public services and accommodations, and whether the reason or rule used to exclude some members of the public from access to an accommodation or service is rationally connected to the function of the business.

As well, the issue is not binary - religious freedom is not absolute, and neither is protection from discrimination. This is more about the continuum of competing rights and freedoms. What needs to factor into the question is not just how closely the service provided relates to the rule being enforced, but also whether the discrimination rises to the level of undue hardship.

Of course, this is just conceptual - I am not a US constitutional expert.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:That includes following the rules saying that you cannot apply your chosen personal beliefs to refuse services based on inherent characteristics.

Is this actually a rule? Rather, I think there are actually specific protected classes. Sure, most of them are based on "inherent" characteristics, but they also include religion, which is not inherent. The protected classes are defined by law.

Fair enough- the distinction that I was trying to express is that there's a difference between refusing services based on who someone is (what all of the legally defined protected classes boil down to) and what they're doing (specifically engaging in activities that manifestly hurt you)

Any objection to a gay wedding boils down to an objection based on who the people getting married are- there is no valid case to be made that their marriage represents an effort to harm or oppress the person providing the service in any way. An objection to serving the KK, on the other hand, is completely independent of who the people are, but entirely based on the fact that a reasonable argument can be made that the KKs behaviors are harmful and oppressive.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Bull. It's a reaction to loss of privilege, not actual bigotry. There's a loss of power and prestige involved, but it's not coming from a campaign of oppression.

I'm sure this is part of it too. But I can palpably feel the dread some Christians feel as they hear vitriol against them and their religion in MSM all the time. If the same rhetoric was issued against Jews on talk shows as it is about Christians the shows would be shut down within a week and the personalities involved censured and blackballed forever. I am not Christian nor do I have any Christian affiliation but I shudder at some of the hateful and ignorant things I hear on a regular basis. I am close with some wonderful Christians and I can see how hurtful a lot of this really is. I have no doubt, Tom, that a lot of bigots and pompous fools are also upset, but I'm quite confident that some of it has to do with bigotry against Christians being mainstream.

quote:Originally posted by scifibum:

quote:The narrative I'm talking about is: Our freedom of religion is being attacked, and we are becoming an oppressed minority.

In other words, loss of the ability to legally discriminate in provision of public accommodations, or in employment, or in housing, is equated to persecution by the state. I'm seeing this sold and bought all over the place, and I'm dismayed because it's a lie.

I think the truth is that a lot of people really would like to see religious freedoms curtailed or removed. In fact I've heard intelligent people say verbatim this is what they'd like to see. The claim Christians are making not is not based on some chimera in order to trick the government into giving them the right to discriminate. That being said, with any claim made some people who make it will be intelligent, honest people with a grievance, and some will be disingenuous bigots who will say anything to stick it to gays. I wouldn't want the latter group to diminish the right of the former group to speak their mind and have their say.

quote:Originally posted by D.W.:

quote:Is it possible that any perceived (and some real) attacks on Christianity are a direct result of the rise of Islamophobia in our country?

I think the anti-Christian sentiment started much earlier. Although 'Muslim terrorists' has been a meme in Hollywood for a while, I don't think there was mainstream animosity against Islam on any significant level until 9/11. Anti-Christian rhetoric has been rising on and off for probably 150 years, and I think it started to get real MSM traction in the 80's, possibly as a backlash against the Evangelical movement and the horrible things being said about gays during the AIDS crisis. If anything I would suggest that anti-religious sentiment in the U.S. began with Christianity and paved the way later to shift the animosity over to the Muslim world as well.

quote:Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:Any objection to a gay wedding boils down to an objection based on who the people getting married are- there is no valid case to be made that their marriage represents an effort to harm or oppress the person providing the service in any way. An objection to serving the KK, on the other hand, is completely independent of who the people are, but entirely based on the fact that a reasonable argument can be made that the KKs behaviors are harmful and oppressive.

While it's true that the KKK advocated harming others and therefore were demonstrably 'unsafe' for certain people to associate with, your criterion of "harmful and oppressive" is unfortunately much more subjective than one would like it to be for it to be able to be substantive for legal purposes. If someone believes that homosexuality is also harmful and oppressive then you'd be hard pressed to "prove" to them that it isn't; it's just your values up against theirs. This doesn't make it right for them to claim you have to abide by their values, but at the same time one can understand when they'd object to being forced to live by yours.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Fenring:I think the truth is that a lot of people really would like to see religious freedoms curtailed or removed. In fact I've heard intelligent people say verbatim this is what they'd like to see. The claim Christians are making not is not based on some chimera in order to trick the government into giving them the right to discriminate.

What religious freedoms? Be specific. Religious freedom has never been absolute. I, for example, am entirely free to practice my religion. If, however, my religious practices included human sacrifice, I would not have complete religious freedom. We don't get to stone adulterers, or beat children (mostly), or prevent our wives from legally divorcing us regardless of religion. And that is a good thing. So what freedoms do you think are being curtailed or removed?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |

quote: But I can palpably feel the dread some Christians feel as they hear vitriol against them and their religion in MSM all the time.

Oh, they can cry me a river. The idea that Christians have to put up with mainstream vitriol -- in America -- is laughable. It's like saying that white men put up with a lot of abuse.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote:If someone believes that homosexuality is also harmful and oppressive then you'd be hard pressed to "prove" to them that it isn't; it's just your values up against theirs.

Why would I try to prove it to them? I need to make the case to a secular court, what they believe is completely irrelevant. That's part of the separation of church and state. They're free to believe what they want, however they have to conform to secular standards and mechanisms when they choose to use public services.

quote:This doesn't make it right for them to claim you have to abide by their values, but at the same time one can understand when they'd object to being forced to live by yours.

This is a false assertion. They are not being forced to live by anyones standards. Their lives are completely irrelevant here, and it's a complete strawman to bring them in. Choosing to offer services to the public is not living their lives- it's a direct choice to utilize and follow the rules associated with public infrastructure, including the understanding that those rules will change as society changes.

They're free to sell services privately, if they want to have full control over their clientele- to only offer them directly to clients they approve of; the public market belongs to the public, though, which means that using it means opting in to the regulations the public puts on it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Fenring:I think the truth is that a lot of people really would like to see religious freedoms curtailed or removed. In fact I've heard intelligent people say verbatim this is what they'd like to see. The claim Christians are making not is not based on some chimera in order to trick the government into giving them the right to discriminate.

What religious freedoms? Be specific. Religious freedom has never been absolute. I, for example, am entirely free to practice my religion. If, however, my religious practices included human sacrifice, I would not have complete religious freedom. We don't get to stone adulterers, or beat children (mostly), or prevent our wives from legally divorcing us regardless of religion. And that is a good thing. So what freedoms do you think are being curtailed or removed?

How do you feel about Sihk children being allowed to carry Kirpans into schools?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Fenring:I think the truth is that a lot of people really would like to see religious freedoms curtailed or removed. In fact I've heard intelligent people say verbatim this is what they'd like to see. The claim Christians are making not is not based on some chimera in order to trick the government into giving them the right to discriminate.

What religious freedoms? Be specific. Religious freedom has never been absolute. I, for example, am entirely free to practice my religion. If, however, my religious practices included human sacrifice, I would not have complete religious freedom. We don't get to stone adulterers, or beat children (mostly), or prevent our wives from legally divorcing us regardless of religion. And that is a good thing. So what freedoms do you think are being curtailed or removed?

Some actions are crimes under the law, and religious freedom does not trump this. The purpose of "religious freedom" being guaranteed under the law isn't to allow people to do anything they want; rather, the law is in place to prevent the government creating legislation that effectively makes it illegal to practice your religion. If your religion happens to include tenets requiring you to commit crimes then you're screwed either way, because the law will not support that.

The main thrust always boils down the thought-control, which often comes in the form of controlling speech, choice, and 'acceptable behavior.' Catholicism, as it happens, doesn't require you to commit murder or theft, so there's no issue there. But Catholicism does require you to abstain from taking the Lord's name in vain. If someone in the workplace required of you to do something commercial that would involve taking the Lord's name in vain, you would be faced with the dilemma of either refusing to do it or else violating the tenets of Catholicism.

As an example hearkening back to the cake baking scenario, imagine (ignoring for the moment who the customer was) a customer asked you to bake a custom cake with the inscription "Screw Jesus." As I understand it Catholic belief would prohibit creating a cake with this message. If the law stated that you had to fill any cake order requested then the law would effectively prohibit you in this case from adhering to your religion. This would be a particular customer, and not a class of people, who ask you to breach your faith. This case would be that the customer requires you to sin directly to fill an order.

Now imagine the design on the cake isn't an issue, but that you will be required to attend a gay wedding in order to deliver the cake and fulfill the contract. If homosexuality is a sin under Catholic doctrine, then by attending you will be not only associating with those who endorse sinful acts (which itself would be ok, since one is meant to hate the sin but not the sinner), but also be assisting them in committing that exact sin and even celebrating it. Does that violate Catholic doctrine?

These are all touchy issues and hard to untangle legally. I think Donald is right when he said above that it's a matter of conflicting guaranteed rights from different groups trying to trump each other, where in certain gray zones it's hard to tell which rights are 'more guaranteed.'
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201504:30 PM
I think that they should be allowed but under a certain length and secured in a sheath so that children - especially - are not able to draw and use them as weapons or accidentally harm another child with them.

Delivering a cake is not attending a wedding. Nor is selling a cake celebrating one.

quote:Originally posted by Pyrtolin:Choosing to offer services to the public is not living their lives- it's a direct choice to utilize and follow the rules associated with public infrastructure, including the understanding that those rules will change as society changes.

They're free to sell services privately, if they want to have full control over their clientele- to only offer them directly to clients they approve of; the public market belongs to the public, though, which means that using it means opting in to the regulations the public puts on it.

I quite honestly don't know what you're talking about there. There is no such place as the "public marketplace" unless you think that the U.S. is a communist country and all business is 'publicly owned.' All commercial transactions are private transactions by definition except for those involving the government. "The public market belongs to the public" is not only circular but also refers to something that does not exist. No person or group of people owns the market. The fact that the government regulates the market has nothing to do with the market belonging to anyone. The whole point of the market system in the U.S. is exactly that all commercial transactions are voluntary and private. Certain classes of people have been named as protected within the marketplace, which creates an exception to the normal rule, and an unusual (if useful) exception at that. You can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason under normal circumstances, except in the exact case where that person has protected status and you are refusing service precisely for the reason that they are in that class.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201504:36 PM
How do you secure a knife in a sheath that makes it physically impossible for the child to get the knife out? Glue it permanently inside? As far as I understand it that would violate the religious requirement about the blade. Stitching it wouldn't really work as those are easy to cut/pull apart.

What we see now are standing orders to have Sikhs keep their Kirpans concealed and not bring them out, which makes similar sense to asking kids to keep guns/knives concealed...

I wonder how long until gun owners suffer so much oppression that they form their own religion which requires them to be armed at all times? How would you respond to that given your stance on the Kirpans?

posted April 28, 201504:39 PM
You don't, that's my point. A "secured" knife looks the same as an unsecured, just as an unloaded gun looks like a loaded one to casual observers.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted April 28, 201504:40 PM
Not equivalent because the sheath/guard is easily distinguished long before a short knife is a danger. Harder to tell a loaded gun from and unloaded one before a kid starts firing. However, if there is a real danger - say the religion required them to be unsheathed - I would agree that public safely should trump religious practice. Of course, we haven't, as a country, yet determined that public safety trumps the pseudo-religion of gun enthusiasts so I am not sure religious knives are our biggest problem.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |

Why is a concealed knife acceptable but a concealed gun is not? There are 100+ victims of the mass Chinese knife attack who might argue on this point if they were all still alive and/or able...

Also, who is to say what is a pseudo-religion and what is not? Because it's 2015 is there some rule that no new religions can form and if they do they are somehow automatically false?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |

Delivering a cake is not attending a wedding. Nor is selling a cake celebrating one.

It's true that in the case of a gay wedding a videographer is a better example to use than a baker, since attendance for the duration of the event would certainly be necessary for a videographer. As for whether attending a celebration is the same as celebrating, let's divide down the middle and call it partaking in a celebration. Unless you attend with a protest sign it can be assumed that anyone in attendance is supporting the event, actively or tacitly.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged |

Delivering a cake is not attending a wedding. Nor is selling a cake celebrating one.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Fenring:

It's true that in the case of a gay wedding a videographer is a better example to use than a baker, since attendance for the duration of the event would certainly be necessary for a videographer.

This. Obviously someone who doesn't want to be there and judges the whole event as sinful is a poor choice. That they are somehow tainted by doing their job is as absurd as my own ridiculous example with the wolves.

posted April 28, 201505:29 PM
Let's admit that these examples--a videographer for a gay wedding and a cake designer for a gay wedding--are pretty close to the line of where freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination cross. We don't want to force people to do things they are uncomfortable with. We also don't want people denied services just because the owner dislikes "their kind." Either would be wrong. Balancing the two is tricky.

Can we also agree that these two examples do not constitute an all-out attack on Christianity, and anyone who describes them as such is just trying to make trouble?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |

quote: There is no such place as the "public marketplace" unless you think that the U.S. is a communist country and all business is 'publicly owned.'

Not the businesses, the market itself that the businesses interact with. Regulatory control defines ownership of a specific market. There's a difference between two people making a direct agreement to a transaction between them, and applying for a public business license, hanging a shingle, and operating a open, public facing business.

If my friends pay me to bake cakes for them, that's a private market where, aside from some baseline standards (some of which are imposed because I'm accepting public credit (money) in order to make the transactions; the rules become even looser if I'm operating on private credit), we set the rules for making transactions. If I open a commercial bakery, a public facing business, then I'm using public infrastructure, including commercial zoning, public licensing processes, visible signs and advertising, and the like.

quote:All commercial transactions are private transactions by definition except for those involving the government.

But the marketplace where they occur- that assures that privacy and provides the rules to which they must comply, is public infrastructure, regulated by the public. You seem to be conflating "of public record" with public.

Where I'm coming from and going to on a road is generally private- meaning that the information isn't published. That doesn't make the road itself private. The road is still public infrastructure, even though I privately own the car and my trip details aren't published.

quote:The whole point of the market system in the U.S. is exactly that all commercial transactions are voluntary and private.

You're confusing a "market system" with a specific implementation of a market. And, again. you're mistaking the assurance of privacy of transactions with the public nature of the interconnect in which they occur.

quote: You can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason under normal circumstances, except in the exact case where that person has protected status and you are refusing service precisely for the reason that they are in that class.

And the reason that they're in that class is because it's been public established that discriminating against them based on that characteristic amounts to measurable harm to them based on an inherent characteristic that has no legitimate business purpose. The classes aren't arbitrary- they're specifically identified characteristics that the public has determined are not relevant to market transactions and thus discrimination along those lines amounts to oppressive behavior.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |